Talk:CWC-isms

From CWCki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deliberate

I looked the word up when I first saw the video. It's a real word, if obscure. Chris is using it correctly, and therefore should not be considered as a CWC-ism. "to think about or discuss issues and decisions carefully". --shogun 21:30, 28 November 2009 (CET)

  • You're completely right. Thanks for the spotting this thing! Removed it from the article. --GokuGetEm 21:52, 28 November 2009 (CET)
  • He's still not using it right - he was using it to mean "continue blabbering on about a topic," which means he confused it with "elaborate." Either way, it's not a cwc-ism, it's Chris not being able to speak coherently. --sonichuis44 01:33, 29 November 2009 (CET)

Fish

Okay, it really shouldn't be here but the origins of the wish thing is some story about a guy who finds a fish and the fish offers the guy three wishes in exchange for its freedom. --Champthom 19:40, 7 November 2009 (CET)

Links

What's up with the weird array of [edit] links next to Deliberate? --Tristran 21:44, 9 November 2009 (CET)

  • It obviously has to do with the contents bar, but is there a way to fix it without entirely getting rid of that bar? --Tristran 21:47, 9 November 2009 (CET)
  • Basically, it's a long-standing weird rendering bug that happens in all MediaWiki sites that use the Monobook skin. It usually manifests itself when there's a ton of section edit links and they're combined with floating content (thumbnailed images, infoboxes or tables of contents that are moved to the side, etc). To fix it for good we'd probably need to bug the Monobook developers. I put __NOEDITSECTION__ to the article for now; this makes the edit links disappear, unfortunately. But better no links than utterly confusing links. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 02:18, 10 November 2009 (CET)

Awkward use of the word "fucking"

This is something that has always caught my eye. Chris, especially in his ED edits seems to use the word "fucking" in the weirdest places. He seems not to use it to empathize something, but merely to sound informal and "trollish", using it as a sentence filler. Should it be mentioned? Pikanic2 21:19, 13 November 2009 (CET)

Actually, I've got an idea for a new article called smth like "Chris's obscenities", where we could catalogue all his cursewords and such. Is this a decent idea? GokuGetEm 18:09, 18 November 2009 (CET)
Yeah, I think it's good Pikanic2 15:48, 24 November 2009 (CET)
  • Actually, I don't think so. I believe this is discussed in the ED edits article, or maybe the main ED article, wherein it's suggested that Chris is trying to be "saltier" by cursing like a sailor so he "fits in" on ED. --Champthom 23:01, 24 November 2009 (CET)

Some points

Sorry to burst your bubble, guys, but "Al-Qaedas" is definitely not a CWC-ism. This word was used by Chris only once, when he mentioned Roberta (from Cleveland Show) "fighting six Al-Qaedas". Actually, this is a direct quote from the show. So, Chris here is not using "Al-Qaedas" as an euphemism for Arabs or terrorists or whatever; he's just quoting a cartoon character's speech style. It's a "Roberta-ism", not a CWC-ism.

Ahmadinejad wearing a Medallion of Fail is lulzy, tho

Also, shouldn't "Navy" and "Comeuppance" be on the Semen page instead of here? (Btw, why is it named Semen and not after one of these CWC-isms?)

Also, is "Fish" a CWC-ism??? It's just a bit of Chris's Random-access humor, imho.

And "Straight"? It's common slang, afaik. How else do you say "not a homo" (aside from the official "heterosexual")? And Chris used it so many times, it probably deserves its own article, anyway.

OK, sorry for this critique incontinence :) GokuGetEm 18:06, 18 November 2009 (CET)

  • 1) people seem to love the Al Qaeda page and this was a compromise, 2) look at the date of the Semen page was created - it was coined before "Navy" was, and Chris only used the word "Navy" once and I think it was in that video where he was only embarrassed that the video was public, not that people found out he drank his semen. Comeuppance, as explained in the semen article, only refers to semen in a specific context of oral sex.
But yes, this list does need cleaning up. Not a huge fan of things like "fish" or "da" being on there. --Champthom 09:14, 19 November 2009 (CET)
    • Re:Semen – I see, you're right, there's no point in renaming if the word was used only once (on a similar case, though... what do you think of my suggestions on the Talk:Niggos page?).
Re:Al Qaeda – come on, but it's just not true! Chris is already funny (and racist) as he is already; we shouldn't fabricate things to make him more racist than he is! It's not TRUE and HONEST!
As for clearing the page – maybe make a section titled "Dubious CWC-isms" or such? We could put all questionable entries (like "Al Qaedas", "Da", "Fish", "Straight" etc.) there; and users could post their opinions about them here on the talk page. What do you think? GokuGetEm 15:00, 19 November 2009 (CET)

Quotes and comeuppance

1. Added quotes subsections to the descriptions as an experiment. This would probably give the article a more dictionary-like style. Would like feedback on this.

2. SPOILER ALERT: The word "Comeuppance" actually has two meanings! Discuss. GokuGetEm 18:11, 19 November 2009 (CET)

Candidate for deletion

In response to Champthom's note above, I'd actually rather we deleted this page than tried to clean it up. I know we try to say that "nothing is too minor" here, but some things seriously are. If a particular term is noteworthy, create a page for it and label it a CWC-ism. But if a particular term is so obviously not noteworthy that the most one can call it is a "minor CWC-ism", ignore it. Alternately, this page could be moved to become a subpage for Sonicow, since it seems to be a pet project of his more than anything else. Llort 23:03, 19 November 2009 (CET)

  • Seconded. Most of these are random single-use manglings of the English language, not words co-opted and used repeatedly by Chris. The only semi-notable one is "navy," and it can easily be noted on the Semen page. --sonichuis44 05:40, 20 November 2009 (CET)
  • There's one thing I agree with – if we add all CWC-isms our hero has uttered through the years, the page would become cluttered and unwieldy to use. But I personally think that all the examples of how Chris mangles the English language should be preserved. In particular, I think words like "characiture", "comeuppance", "cosmos", "crooks", "deliberate", "hand artery", "heartsweet", "heavyweight", "I be a Chandler", "navy", "self-epic" and "somecummpentydifferent" deserve to be preserved in eternity. I suggest we clean up the article from non-CWC-isms, and maybe rename it into "List of CWC-isms" or "CWCtionary" (a suggestion in Talk:CWC-isms), where major CWC-isms would be linked to, and minor CWC-isms would be mentioned and explained laconically (much like in List of Sonichu characters). No shit is too minor! GokuGetEm 08:50, 20 November 2009 (CET)
  • I tend to agree with Llort in that a noteworthy CWCism is usually one that will manage to get its own article. But I think this page does have potential, we just need to work a bit on quality control in what goes here. I think this really needs to be made into a broader CWCism page (in other words, a List of CWC-isms), with existing CWCisms incorporated only to give a concise definition, a quote in context, and the times references by Chris (because it's not necessarily important to the Honesty article, for instance, to list every time Chris has said the word "honest" as I think it rather detracts from discussing how Chris has a fucked up conception of honesty). I mean, a dictionary entry for a word isn't the same as an encyclopedia entry for the same word. I think we need to stick to strictly unique words Chris has come up ("heartsweet," "attraction time," "comeuppance," etc.) and not so much his mispronunciations or definite articles (like "da", "somecummpentydifferent").
Also, I definitely think we should have quotes to go along with each instance the word is used in said instance, so we can really see how Chris uses said word and that would help refine the meaning. In fact, that's more or less what the first dictionary writers with - cull through literature and look for words that were used a lot, then write a definition based on the context those words were used and include some quotes of the word being used to illustrate the point. --Champthom 21:16, 20 November 2009 (CET)
    • I completely agree.
As for quotes, I started adding some, but failed to finish that due to stress, etc. etc. I'll work on adding more quotes and new words in the near future GokuGetEm 23:25, 20 November 2009 (CET)
  • Keep. If anything, these words are at least worth documenting; the article does need reorganisation etc though. --Sonicow 20:17, 28 November 2009 (CET)

Reorganisation

I don't think this needs to be deleted, but it does need reorganisation. How about this sort of format

YOUNG LADY
A person Chris addressed some good advice to. Origin: that one video.

Then just organise the sections by letter: == A ==, etc. I think there's a magic word of some sort that allows you to build a letter-based index automatically (as in Wikipedia's list articles), can't remember it offhand. This would allow for better navigation and would make the article look a lot better. How about? --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 13:58, 20 November 2009 (CET)

  • I agree! GokuGetEm 16:49, 20 November 2009 (CET)
  • Isn't there some fancy way to make the definitions collapsible? This could save a lot of space. --Anaconda 20:53, 23 November 2009 (CET)
    • Yes, there is, but that'd make reading the page pain. Or, presumably, printing... if people are into that sort of things. And also it'd make editing fun when people mess up the wikimarkup. So I'd still be in favour of the above format - it takes much less space than the current one... --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (CET)
    • A few more seconds of brain use later: collapsible objects are more suitable for situations where you have a huge bunch of boring stuff that you want to get out of sight. That is to say, clearly defined kinds of objects that are found in one clearly defined place in the page. They're not that well suitable for hiding the content people actually want to read first. The same in an easily digestible form: People come to the page looking for the definitions, so definitions they should get. If it includes a huge gallery of Chris's artwork listing every instance of "seinor", that should be hidden, because that's just marginally related to the term and having such gallery here would actually make finding the terms harder. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 22:55, 24 November 2009 (CET)

Purged some non-CWC-isms

Okay, I took the role of the "bad cop", and deleted several words, which by no means should be on this page.

  • Al-Qaedas - It's not a CWC-ism, it's a Roberta-ism. Chris was quoting the character Roberta from the Cleveland Show, who said exactly the same phrase (that she "fought six Al-Qaedas"). This retarded-speak was part of the joke in the show, adding to the impression that her claims were ridiculous. Chris just repeated that same joke, using it in the same sense (that Liquid's claims were ridiculous). Never did Chris himself use the word out of that context, or endorse using it. Stop trying to make Chris more racist than he already is - it's like smearing shit in shit. Quoting a cartoon character does not a CWC-ism make, guys.
  • Fish - It's not a CWC-ism, it's a part of Chris's vast "treasury" of Random-access humor. If you want, add "Fish" to the RAH article.
  • Straight - It's not a CWC-ism. It's a normal, often-used part of English slang. If you want, you can add the list of instances where Chris claimed that he's straight, to the Homos article. It's a question of his homophobia, not of language.

Now, if you disagree, please try to prove me wrong.

Oh, and by the way, nice new page design :) --GokuGetEm 09:29, 25 November 2009 (CET)

Still up for deletion?

No offense to Goku, who has been trying to salvage this page, but it's still shit. Most of these are not so much cwc-isms as dialectal differences ("da") or times Chris got tongue-tied or misspoke. Find me evidence that any of these were used deliberately, and more than once, and I'll believe they're really worth their own article. --sonichuis44 01:33, 29 November 2009 (CET)

  • No offense taken. Sorry, but I thought that the definition for a "minor CWC-ism" is "a fucked-up word Chris consciously coined and used at least 1 time, and which is not a misspelling"? Many of these fit that definition. However, I agree with you on "da", "fuck", "soo", and some others. But most other words are fine, imo. Take "characiture", for example. He used it several times, never varying or correcting it. Or "geinus". Or completely strange words like "navy" or "comeuppance" or "heartsweet". To recap, I would prefer to discuss individual entries – which are fine, which deserve to be mercilessly removed. --GokuGetEm 01:49, 29 November 2009 (CET) P.S.: I'll get to fixing the style the descriptions are written after I finish some other shit.
    • Fair enough, but some of these are only used once (or at least only cited once), and I don't think that's enough to establish it as a word Chris "consciously coined and used," as opposed to a misspelling or misspeaking. I'd agree that "comeuppance," for example, is a cwc-ism, but "characiture" was used once, and even if he used it multiple times, there's no reason to believe Chris just doesn't know how to spell "caricature." "Cosmos," as in something Chris can feel, isn't even that strange a usage; I've heard plenty of hippies say things like that, and not while functionally retarded and ridiculously excited, like Chris was in those videos. I could go through the whole article, but I don't want to bore you, and others probably will want to weigh in, too. --sonichuis44 02:03, 29 November 2009 (CET)
      • Hmm. I've thought of an idea. How about a page on Chris's misspellings? We have Chris and English, but it's more general. I'm now in the process of reading through his comics (for another purpose), and along the way I've collected many lulzy misspellings. So, maybe some of these ("characiture", "geinus", "seinor", etc.) could go on the "List of Misspellings". Some, like Chris's use of "Fuck", may go on a page I suggested earlier: "Chris's expletives" (I've seen such a lulzy example somewhere: "my fucking sweethart". It's definitely worth the mention imo :) ). What's left? "Navy", "comeuppance", "heartsweet", "hand artery" and some others are CWC-isms. And what about "lovehogs", "pokelove", "let's bolt" and others not mentioned yet here? They deserve to be mentioned somewhere, too, as a part of Chris retarded-speak. I guess, here's the best place. --GokuGetEm 02:21, 29 November 2009 (CET) P.S.: "Cosmos"... yes, that's an existing word, but weird as hell. Part of CWC-ism's definition is being a weird word used by Chris for no reason. So... maybe it still qualifies.
        • I agree that stupid words Chris has made up (lovehogs, let's bolt) deserve a mention here; I think the page should be devoted to funny things like that rather than every time Chris confused one word for another. I don't think a page of misspellings is a good idea, because 1. you'd have to work on it for years in order to make a complete listing of everything Chris has misspelled, 2. If a misspelling is persistent enough, it should be here, but every single misspelling shouldn't, and 3. Who the fuck cares about words Chris has misspelled? Go ahead and ask Champthom or somebody with more seniority, though.
As far as "cosmos...." That was my point, it's not that weird a usage. Maybe I've just been exposed to more people who can "totally feel the universe, maaaan." --sonichuis44 02:33, 29 November 2009 (CET)
  • Good heavens, no, I didn't mean every single misspelling! With Chris's way of (ab)using English, such a list would take decades to complete! I meant, the most prominent/lulzy ones. It's just, you argued that things like "characiture" shouldn't be here, despite being used several times. And what about words like "geinus"? Maybe they would be better off in a "List of Chris's notable misspellings". As for "cosmos"... okay, if it's a normal slang for hippies, shouldn't it be probably be noted somewhere at least? That Chris uses a hippie slang? Imho, it's an interesting and funny part of his personality --GokuGetEm 02:49, 29 November 2009 (CET)
  • I feel like we're going around in circles now, so we should probably get another opinion. Was "characiture" used more than once? I thought he just used it on his wiki on that one drawing. And it's still a misspelling of a real word being used correctly. "Geinus" is funny for the irony, but I just don't think something like that is worth putting in an article. Then again, I've spent more time arguing about it than it took to write the entry! I guess if no shit is too minor, misspellings should be documented, right? --sonichuis44 03:01, 29 November 2009 (CET)

Despite all of the work that's gone into trying to make it less of a piece of shit, this page is definitely still up for deletion. My reasoning remains exactly the same now as it was when I first proposed deletion: "If a particular term is noteworthy, create a page for it and label it a CWC-ism. But if a particular term is so obviously not noteworthy that the most one can call it is a 'minor CWC-ism', ignore it." This page will always be a piece of shit so long as it deals entirely with non-noteworthy material, which it must by its very nature. Llort 16:40, 29 November 2009 (CET)

  • Definitions, origins and usages shouldn't all be on the same line. --Sonicow 09:24, 3 December 2009 (CET)
  • I agree. Actually I think the previous page design (without the alphabet index) was better, but that may be just me --GokuGetEm 10:33, 3 December 2009 (CET)

Ugh?

Would Chris's use of the word "ugh" be worth noting on this article? From what I've seen he seems to use it most when talking about homos (i.e. It's UGH!, Chris complaining about the ads on CWCipedia).--Lime Madotsuki.png 07:27, 29 November 2009 (CET)

Discussion of individual words

I thunk this can be helpful. Please, post comments under individual words - what do you think they are (CWC-ism, misspelling, speech impediment, etc etc) and what do you suggest to do with them. By the way, I added a few new words/expressions I found while (UGH) reading the comics.

One more thing: I guess the problem is, there are CWC-isms (normal words which work like bizarre synonyms for other words; e.g., "Duck"), CWC-neologisms (new retarded words coined by Chris; e.g., "Heartsweet") and general CWC-speak (existing, but rare or weird words Chris likes to use; e.g., "Hanky-Panky").

That said, on to the list!

  • Attracting (a girl, etc.)
    • General CWC-speak --Goku
  • Bolt (as in, "Let's bolt!")
    • CWC-neologism --Goku
  • Caring (personality)
    • General CWC-speak --Goku
  • Characiture
    • Repeated misspelling. He used it several times, which means it's not a momentary mistype. To the "List of notable misspellings" --Goku
  • Comeuppance
    • CWC-ism --Goku
  • Cosmos
    • General CWC-speak, or maybe hippie-speak? --Goku
  • Crooks
    • General CWC-speak --Goku
  • Da
    • Accent, speech impediment or just trying to soung "street". Dunno where should it go, but probably should somewhere --Goku
  • Electric-Hedgehog Pokemon, Hedgehog-type Pokemon
    • CWC-neologism --Goku
  • Four-boomerang-shaped-symbol
    • CWC-neologism --Goku
  • Frustrated/Frustration
    • General CWC-speak --Goku
  • Fuck
    • Create an article about Chris's use of expletives. I'll do it when I have more time --Goku
  • Give the birth
    • Misuse of "the". To the "Chris and English" article --Goku
  • Hand artery
    • CWC-neologism --Goku
  • Heartsweet
    • CWC-neologism --Goku
  • Heavyweight
    • CWC-ism --Goku
  • I B A Chandler
    • Dunno. Trying to soung "street"/"leet"? CWC-neologism? --Goku
  • Like, you know
    • Parasite word. Maybe to the "Chris and English" article --Goku
  • Lovehogs
    • CWC-neologism --Goku
  • Metemon
    • CWC-neologism
  • Mother's skirt
    • Normal, if outdated phraseologism. Either nothing, or general CWC-speak --Goku
  • Navy
    • CWC-ism --Goku
  • NEARLY SAME
    • Get rid of CAPS LOCK, to the "Chris and English" article (see "Give the birth") --Goku
  • OW! MY AXELS!
    • The only interesting thing here is the word "axels", which is a misspelling. To the "List of notable misspellings" --Goku
  • Pokelove
    • CWC-neologism --Goku
  • Salty
    • Need examples to determine. Probably either nothing, or general CWC-speak, or maybe even a CWC-ism. Need examples --Goku
  • Self-epic
    • CWC-neologism --Goku
  • Shattered (heart)
    • General CWC-speak --Goku
  • Somecummpentydifferent
    • Speech impediment. To whichever article discusses it --Goku
  • Soo
    • It's often used in netspeak. Imo, it's not Chris-specific --Goku
  • Spunky
    • General CWC-speak --Goku
  • Tough lightning!
    • CWC-neologism --Goku
  • True Love
    • General CWC-speak --Goku
  • Ugh
    • General CWC-speak, or even CWC-neologism? Or maybe it can be part of "Chris's use of expletives"? Dunno, but definitely worth noting imo --Goku
  • Wrath
    • General CWC-speak --Goku

That's it. I guess, "CWC-isms", "CWC-neologisms" and "General CWC-speak" could be 3 different sections of one (this) article. --GokuGetEm 11:49, 29 November 2009 (CET)

"I do not not care" (maybe not even minor)

Chris uses it when he DOES care very much but hates something, for example:

  • I DO NOT CARE to go to such "Special Places", especially if they have physically deformed individuals who can not say any legible words beyond "Uhhhhh..."; they are as creepy as zombies.
  • I never cared for the HEXBox, and frankly it LACKS heavily in comparison to the Wii and PS3, PLUS YOU HAVE TO PAY THEIR FEES TO EVEN GO ONLINE OR DOWNLOAD DEMOS WITH IT. The Wii and Playstation Networks are FREE, ONLY costing you if you BUY the Downloadable Games. When Microsoft FINALLY get that costly detail LONG-GONE, I MAY reconsider. But in the meantime, I rest my case.
  • Like Most People, I do not care much for Adolf; he was a terrible man, and even in jest, I WOULD NEVER want to portray him, much less, his four-boomerang-shaped symbol (I know what it is called, but I do not wish to type the word).
  • Those ads were put there, WITHOUT MY APPROVAL, by the individual who paid to place ads on here. I personally DO NOT care for THAT AD either.
  • I do not care much that you refer to me as "benevolent"; it sounds derogatory.

--Sonijew 11:23, 2 December 2009 (CET)

  • Good point! Definitely a CWC-ism. --GokuGetEm 20:12, 2 December 2009 (CET)

"Do not care for" (and sometimes "do not care to") are idioms carrying a different meaning from that of the simple phrase "do not care" (and, more specifically, "do not care about"). It's not that Chris is misusing "do not care" as both of you seem to believe. This is but one of many examples of you two enthusiastically adding non-noteworthy or just-plain-wrong information to CWCki. Llort 23:32, 2 December 2009 (CET)

  1. I didn't add shit. I just posted my (albeit wrong, as it turns out) opinion.
  2. Thank you for correcting me on this idiom; I was not aware of it, possibly because English is not my first language.
  3. Please point out where exactly did I post "just-plain-wrong" information on CWCki. I believe I never did.
  4. As for "non-noteworthy"... well, no shit is too minor. I rule it out this way: if some info makes me laugh (or even chuckle a bit) at Chris, it probably should be mentioned somewhere. If you believe otherwise, I would like to hear your criteria.
Have a good day --GokuGetEm 00:05, 3 December 2009 (CET)
It's Sonijew who adds lots of just-plain-wrong information. (Note that I used the conjunction "or" - not "and" - in my earlier post.)
There's nothing wrong with English being your second language, but you probably shouldn't be declaring (as you did above) that something Chris has said is "definitely a CWC-ism", since you're not familiar with the ins-and-outs of American English and American slang.
As for your last point, "no shit is too minor" strikes me as an old rule from CWCki's earliest days that has largely outlived its usefulness. All phrases that Chris has ever used are available in chat logs, video transcripts, or other CWCki documents, and therefore, they are "mentioned somewhere" as you would like them to be. But this page serves no useful purpose. Llort 00:40, 3 December 2009 (CET)
I see. "Definitely" - yeah, you're right, should've checked urbandictionary first. "No shit is too minor" and this page - okay, I swear I'll finally get my hands on revamping this article quite soon; we would see then if it deserves to be deleted (I would personally suggest merging with CWC-ism then) or left as it is. --GokuGetEm 00:50, 3 December 2009 (CET)

It's Sonijew who adds lots of just-plain-wrong information.

Like what for example? Actually I even rarely add anything.--Sonijew 04:58, 3 December 2009 (CET)

My reply is so long that I just stuck it on your talk page. Llort 07:50, 3 December 2009 (CET)

Guys, I think this is a rule somewhere but please, if you're freaking out over shit on the CWCki, turn off your computer machine, take a walk, and remind yourselves you're getting angry over a wiki about an autistic manchild.

Let's talk about the "I don't care for..." thing first. It's an English idiom, yes, But it's a not a super common one and not something 27 year olds typically say on a regular basis. Younger people tend to say things like "I'm not a big fan of" or "I'm not really into" instead of "I don't care for." It'd be interesting to note since this is a common Chris thing since this is Chris attempting to be polite. It deserves a mention somewhere, though I'm not sure. Maybe "Frequently used Chris phrases" or something like that. CWCisms should be specifically Chris things, like "china" or "monthly tugboat," that sort of thing.

Second of all, let's discuss this article, since (from what I'm trying to gather from reading this discussion), people are complaining about the relevancy of this article. This is a useful article. It's a mess before and it's still a mess but it serves a purpose. Chris creates unique neologisms and part of our task should be to document these unique Chris terms and define them, and keep track of when they're mentioned. People might not feel like searching through to see when and where, they'd like all the information in one place. For instance, someone might want to see how Chris uses the word "pickle" and if they want a more in depth look at the subject, they can look at that article. This article has potential to be a useful tool and a portal to other articles, we just need to work more on quality control and trying to sort out what's a CWCism without biting people's heads off.

Finally, let's talk about "no shit is too minor." I have no idea who coined the phrase, as it wasn't me and it was something someone added one day but I think it's a good philosophy. From what I understand Llort to be saying, he's saying something like "We don't need an entire article on CWCisms, if people want to see the crazy words Chris makes up, they can find them in existing documents." Well here's the thing - sometimes, people don't feel like digging through documents and e-mails to find something. For instance, Chris's cum drinking - we could delete the semen page and expect people to find the Mumble chat where Chris says it, the video where Chris does the act, and the video where Chris admits it. But instead, it's part of the semen page because 1) it's easier to have everything in one place, 2) it's a topic that gives some insight into Chris, that sort of thing.

So what's the line of "no shit is too minor"? Well we don't need individual articles for every topic imaginable - we don't need pages for every Sonichu character, for instance, when many of them can go into that List of Sonichu characters (otherwise, you'd have hundreds of articles for throw away characters from the series). Sometimes things can be incorporated into existing articles - for instance, it's helpful to just have recycling under semen otherwise you'd have a tiny page for recycling and another tiny page for semen. But in the end, every facet of Chris's life, no matter how minor, is given attention to and is chronicled and exposed. Prior to the CWCki, trolls really didn't save much because people would say "What's the point?" For instance, we've lost the Hot Wheels page. It's not a very fascinating facet of Chris's life but it reveals something about him, namely he actually grew out of something. It's only recently stuff like Hotel Ricky Ricardo has come to light is because before, nobody ever bothered paying attention because no one really saw the merit in some school assignment Chris did for school but on the contrary, it gives us even more insight. Every little thing about Chris gives us a deeper and broader understanding of his life and times and the fantasy world which he has created for himself. It's our job to chronicle it for the Internet public at large and to assist trolls in better trolling him.

Llort, GokuGetEm, Sonijew, you're very passionate CWCKi editors who want what you each believe to be best and I like that. But please, let's not bite each other's heads off. Keep it up and I'll have to put you boys in time out. --Champthom 08:48, 3 December 2009 (CET)

  1. Yeah, I totally agree with you. It's not the place, and not the cause. Sorry for the drama.
  2. Okay, as I said, I'm no expert on American idioms, but if it's as not frequently used as you say, then it could be what I earlier categorized as "general CWC-speak". You named it "Frequently used Chris phrases", maybe it's better. Or, err... what's the English term for "an existing word, just rarely used nowadays"? It's what this category is about (you know, with stuff like Cosmos, Crooks, Spunky, True Love, Wrath, etc.). I think I'm gonna add descriptions of the 3 types of CWC-isms ("CWC-neologisms", "CWC-euphemisms", "CWC-whateverwecallthisone") soon, so it would be more clear.
  3. Well, as I've already stated above, my opinion on this isn't very different. I know that this page, in the state it is today, doesn't look very pretty. But that doesn't necessarily mean it would be useless after we revamp it.
So to sum it all up, everyone, let's stop the drama here, OK? Chris should be the one making drama, not us --GokuGetEm 10:33, 3 December 2009 (CET)

The potential of this article remains questionable in my mind, but Champthom is certainly right to invoke "don't get mad over CWCki". So, I think I'll just stay away from this page for a while and see what comes of it down the line. Maybe it'll turn into something cool. Llort 16:34, 3 December 2009 (CET)

I think the problem is that this page's contents are being compared to the CWC-isms with whole articles. The thing is, not every CWC-ism has a fun story behind it. Homos has Chris' history with homosexuals, and Honest Content has, well, how he isn't really honest, so they get full articles. Some CWC-isms, like "I don't care much for", are just "He says X. He really means Y." This article should stay, as it further explains Chris' tenuous grasp on English without everything needing an amazing story. It needs cleaned up, mostly of things like "Da" and "Like, you know", but it serves a purpose, whoever odd. It could be adapted in to a full list of CWC-isms with the major ones having links to their articles after definitions, if that'd make it more useful. --OFSheep 02:44, 17 December 2009 (CET)

Name change?

Would it make any more sense if we rename this page to CWCtionary or would that be too unfitting for a wiki page? --CWCAttack 02:58, 17 December 2009 (CET)

  • We could make this into a separate CWCki project, similar to the CWChronology, which would allow for separate pages for some CWCisms and not others. In fact, I think we should do that. Good thinking. --Champthom 08:42, 28 December 2009 (CET)

Collapsible definitions

I think we should reconsider collapsible definitions. It would tidy the page up and shorten it significantly if you only saw the definitions you chose.

Here's what "C" would look like collapsible;

C

And here's the basic formula for a collapsible definition;

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;" ! style="background-color:#ffffff;" | [WORD/PHRASE] |- |<blockquote> 1. [DEFINITION 1] <br /> 2. [DEFINITION 2] <br /><br /> '''Origin:''' [ORIGIN] <br /><br /> '''Usage:''' *[USAGES] '''Quotes:''' [QUOTES] </blockquote> |}

Opinions? --Sonicow 13:54, 27 December 2009 (CET)

  • Cool shit, man :) I support this. --GokuGetEm 14:11, 27 December 2009 (CET)
    • Just one suggestion: Could you make a place for [TYPE OF CWC-ISM] in your "basic formula"? I'll write on "4 main types of CWC-isms", when I wouldn't be in a stressful clumber (read: lazy :) ). --GokuGetEm 14:15, 27 December 2009 (CET)
  • You mean like this?

Yeah, that makes sense. The formula is now;

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;" ! style="background-color:#ffffff;" | [WORD/PHRASE] |- |<blockquote> '''Definition:'''<br /> 1. [DEFINITION 1] <br /> 2. [DEFINITION 2] <br /><br /> '''Type:''' [TYPE] <br /><br /> '''Origin:''' [ORIGIN] <br /><br /> '''Usage:''' *[USAGES] '''Quotes:''' [QUOTES] </blockquote> |}

I also added "Definition:" just above the definitions. If there's any more support or opinions on this it'd be nice to hear them. --Sonicow 20:31, 27 December 2009 (CET)

  • Looks cool, thanks! It would be grand if it would be implemented. Er... Not wanting to be considered nitpicking or anything, but... Could you possibly change places the "Definition:" part and the "Type:" part? Also, the "Usage:" part and the "Quotes:" part probably need to be changed places, as well. The latter change is because "Usage" should be a long list of links (like the "See also" sections in articles), while "Quotes" is just 1-2 most notable quotes used as examples. So... the order would be as follows: "Type:", "Definition:", "Origin:", "Quotes:", "Usage:". Could you please do this? Thanks in advance! --GokuGetEm 20:41, 27 December 2009 (CET) P.S.: As an afterthought - "Quotes:" should probably be better renamed to "Examples:" What do you think?
  • It can be easily modified, have a go with it yourself. --Sonicow 12:33, 28 December 2009 (CET)
  • Fair enough. Here's what I got:

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;" ! style="background-color:#ffffff;" | [WORD/PHRASE] |- |<blockquote> '''Definition:'''<br /> 1. [DEFINITION 1] <br /> 2. [DEFINITION 2] <br /><br /> '''Type:''' [TYPE] <br /><br /> '''Origin:''' (for CWC-neologisms) / '''Original meaning:''' (for CWC-euphemisms) / '''Meaning:''' (for CWC-phraseologisms) / '''Original spelling:''' (for CWC-misspellings)<br /> [ORIGIN/ORIGINAL MEANING/MEANING/ORIGINAL SPELLING] <br /><br /> '''Examples:'''<br /> [EXAMPLES] <br /><br /> '''Usage:''' *[USAGE 1] *[USAGE 2] *[USAGE 3] </blockquote> |}

--GokuGetEm 15:55, 30 December 2009 (CET)

Merge with CWC-isms?

As for the Merge template I put on the page: I suggest that, after thoroughly revamping this page and only then, we probably should put all this glossary (I support the idea of calling it CWCtionary) onto the CWC-isms page. The main reason? I suggest that this "CWCtionary" should include not only the "Minor" CWC-isms, but actually all CWC-isms. Sonicow's collapsible template allows the page to host much text, but still not look oversized. Note that the more notable CWC-isms, those which have their own pages, still need proper dictionary definitions! And most of them don't have any. The articles on "Homos" or "Duck" or "China" mostly deal with the meaning of these words (which is important, of course), but not the words themselves. Thus, these words will also receive their proper dictionary definitions at the CWCtionary, and be linked to their respective pages.

So, okay. Thoughts? --GokuGetEm 20:52, 27 December 2009 (CET)

You mean, a dictionary of all CWC-isms, both major and minor, with links to those who are major and minor?

I'd support this as long as the articles for major CWC-isms are put in a category of "Major CWC-isms", so as to be able to browse them separately. Seems better for me this way :3 -- Da Nuke 13:14, 2 January 2010 (CET)

I've started updating the format of the individual word entries to something a little easier to read. There's a lot of CWC-isms on the page, so this may take a while. I also added stubs for each of the "major CWC-ism" listed in the template as having their own articles, to make it easier to convert this page into a master list of all CWC-isms, with links to articles about the important ones like "love quest" and "monthly tugboat." I definitely think a "CWCtionary" is needed, since a lot of CWC-isms are actually important to explain but don't really warrant full-fledged articles (Raincoat), while others terms need lengthy articles but aren't really CWC-isms ("navy" and "comeuppance" just redirect to "semen").--MachPunch 22:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we just have a glossary. There are some terms that weren't coined by Chris, but that we nevertheless need glossary entries for (such as "A-logging", "Solid Chris", "cut down the Internet"...). Promethean (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Speech Impediment

Some of these minor CWC-isms don't seem to be unique terminology so much as Chris mispronouncing things due to his speech impediment.-trombonista 20:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think some of them do need to be explained, if not on this article then somewhere. The audio/video transcripts don't often transliterate Chris's garbled speech, mostly because the results would be nearly unreadable. "Buh bye bay nose" has been a meme that gets tossed around a lot, but it makes no sense without an explanation of the context it came from, so you know what Chris was trying to say. --MachPunch 22:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Want to fix but...

You might want to look at the "LULZ" entry, there's some mistake in there (can't remember what it was, closed the tab, sorry, but it was somewhere around the word "doesn't"). Seems like a good article though. Thelieisacake 00:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Collapsible stuff

Not to complain too much, but there's a small problem with making the entire article collapsible: It makes actually using the page more difficult. If you're reading the page for the first time, there'll be a lot of clicking. Seeing what has changed since the last time you were on the page will be fun. Finally, try using the "Printable version" link in the sidebar - I guarantee you won't be amused. I wonder if there would be some kind of a JavaScript bit that would allow you to make a "show all" link? --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 06:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. The best of both worlds is probably to have the collapsible templates expanded by default (which I can do), with a single "hide/show all" link (which is over my head). I'm also wondering if it'd be simpler to make the sections for each letter collapsible instead of the entries themselves, which would at least reduce the number of things to toggle. --MachPunch 16:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

New CWC-isms

If you found any CWC-isms not listed in the article, suggest them here. Remeber to follow the set of guidelines for what classifies as a CWC-ism on the original page. Make sure Chris actually coined the phrase before you make a suggestion.

No Fucking Shit

Should No Fucking Shit / N.F.S. be listed as a CWC-ism? Examples in WCT DMs. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I think he uses it enough for it to qualify as such. Psycho (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://sonichu.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:CWC-isms&oldid=280239"